Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén and Montesi, Michela Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 2020, vol. 29, n. 4, pp. 469-488. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of ResearchEvaluation2020.pdf]
Preview
 Text
ResearchEvaluation2020.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (383kB) | Preview

English abstract

The topic of acknowledgements has produced abundant research since the 1970s, though, as previous studies point out, the value of acknowledgements has not yet been demonstrated and further research is limited by lack of conceptualization. This study focuses on funding acknowledgements (FAs), considering that funding represents an important input in the scientific process. In this context, 183 scientific publications retrieved from Scopus from the 1970s until June 2020 were analyzed, with the aim of systematizing conceptually this body of research and contributing to a theory of acknowledgements. Results are summarized into the following main themes: the meaning of FAs; data sources for acknowledgements; the process of funding; association of funding with productivity, impact, and collaboration; and other aspects affected by funding. The literature reviewed shows that a theory of acknowledgements based on the reward triangle, as in previous studies, is unable to capture the extreme complexity of the scientific activity affecting and being affected by FAs. Funding bodies appear as clear and influential actors in the scientific communication system, making important decisions on the research that is supported, and influencing the type of knowledge produced. Funding agencies hold a responsibility regarding the data that they may collect on their programs, as well as the normalization policies they need to develop so that funded authors can reference with less ambiguity the financial source of their projects. Finally, the need to assess the impact of research funding beyond the scientific community that is, the societal impact, is also addressed.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Funding acknowledgments; scientific performance; research funding; scientific policies; research evaluation.
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
Depositing user: Michela Montesi
Date deposited: 08 Aug 2024 14:34
Last modified: 08 Aug 2024 14:34
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/45505

References

Abad-García, M. F., González-Teruel, A., & Sánchez, G. S. (2017, June). Investigación pediátrica española financiada: contribución de Anales de Pediatría a su difusión. In Anales de Pediatría (Vol. 86, No. 6, pp. 306-313). Elsevier Doyma.

Alcaraz, D. I. M., & Ariza, M. A. A. (2015). Exploring acknowledgement practices in English-medium astrophysics research papers: Implications on authorship. LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 21(1), 132-159.

Alnemary, F. M., Alnemary, F. M., & Alamri, Y. A. (2017). Autism research: Where does the Arab world stand?. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4(2), 157-164.

Álvarez-Bornstein, B., & Bordons, M. (2019). Industry involvement in biomedical research: Authorship, research funding and conflicts of interest. 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI, 2019, pp. 1746-1751.

Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2019). What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain. Scientometrics, 119(2), 805-825.

Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2017). Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1793-1812.

An, J., Jeon, S., Jones, T., & Song, M. (2017). Data-driven pattern analysis of acknowledgments in the biomedical domain. Data and Information Management, 1(1), 35-48.

Anderson, J., Williams, K., Seemungal, D., Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1996). Human genetic technology: exploring the links between science and innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8(2), 135-156.

Åström, F., Hedenfalk, I., Graffner, M., & Nilbert, M. (2013). Effects of Research Funding, Gender and Type of Position on Research Collaboration Networks: A Micro-level Study of Cancer Research at Lund University. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.), PROCEEDINGS OF ISSI 2013 Vienna: 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 677-689). Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH Vienna.

Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research policy, 39(6), 822-834.

Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., Li, D., & Sampat, B. N. (2018). Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: evidence from NIH funding rules. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 117-152.

Bakker, V. J., Baum, J. K., Brodie, J. F., Salomon, A. K., Dickson, B. G., Gibbs, H. K., ... & McIntyre, P. B. (2010). The changing landscape of conservation science funding in the United States. Conservation Letters, 3(6), 435-444.

Beaudry, C., & Allaoui, S. (2012). Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 41(9), 1589-1606.

Begum, M., & Lewison, G. (2017). Web of Science Research Funding Information: Methodology for its use in Analysis and Evaluation. J. Sci. Res., 6(2), 65-73.

Begum, M., Lewison, G., Wright, J. S., Pallari, E., & Sullivan, R. (2016). European non-communicable respiratory disease research, 2002-13: bibliometric study of outputs and funding. PloS one, 11(4), e0154197.

Belter, C. W. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. Scientometrics, 95(2), 629-644.

Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1999). The efficacy of different modes of funding research: perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences. Research Policy, 28(5), 489-499.

Boyack, K. W., & Börner, K. (2003). Indicator‐assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447-461.

Boyack, K. W., & Jordan, P. (2011). Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(4), 423-431.

Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research policy, 27(8), 807-821.

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684.

Butler, L. (2001). Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 59-65.

Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Côté, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., ... & Laframboise, M. C. (2010). Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 66-83.

Campbell, E. G., Louis, K. S., & Blumenthal, D. (1998). Looking a gift horse in the mouth: corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA, 279(13), 995-999.

Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55-72.

Chimonas, S., Frosch, Z., & Rothman, D. J. (2011). From disclosure to transparency: the use of company payment data. Archives of internal medicine, 171(1), 81-86.

Clark, B. Y., & Llorens, J. J. (2012). Investments in scientific research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 698-729.

Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647-1661.

Costas, R., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2013). Possibilities of funding acknowledgement analysis for the bibliometric study of research funding organizations: case study of the Austrian Science Fund (Fwf). In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna 15-19 July (pp. 1401-8).

Councill, I. G., Giles, C. L., Han, H., & Manavoglu, E. (2005, October). Automatic acknowledgement indexing: expanding the semantics of contribution in the CiteSeer digital library. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Knowledge capture (pp. 19-26). ACM.

Crawpord, E.T., Biderman, A.D. (1970), Paper money: trends of research sponsorship in American sociology journals. Social Science Information, 9(1), pp. 50–77.

Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402-408.

Cronin, B., & Weaver, S. (1995). The praxis of acknowledgement: from bibliometrics to influmetrics. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 18(2), 172-177. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.1995.v18.i2.654

Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Rubio, L. (1993). The norms of acknowledgement in four humanities and social sciences disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 49(1), 29-43.

Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Stiffler, M. (1992). Patterns of acknowledgement. Journal of Documentation, 48(2), 107-122.

Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., Rubio, L., & Weaver‐Wozniak, S. (1993). Accounting for influence: Acknowledgments in contemporary sociology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(7), 406-412.

Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & Barre, K. L. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160-168.

Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.

Cronin, B., Sugimoto, C. (2014). Beyond Bibliometrics. Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Cronin, B. (1991). Let the credits roll: a preliminary examination of the role played by mentors and trusted assessors in disciplinary formation. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 227-239.

De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow press.

Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research policy, 38(2), 293-305.

De Jong, S., Barker, K., Cox, D., Sveinsdottir, T., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2014). Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 89-102.

De Los Reyes A.Wang M. (2012), ‘Applying Psychometric Theory and Research to Developing a Continuously Distributed Approach to Making Research Funding Decisions', Review of General Psychology, 16/3: 298–304.

Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., & Pecoskie, J. (2015, June). Founding Concepts and Foundational Work: Establishing the Framework for the Use of Acknowledgments as Indicators. In: Salah, A.A., Y. Tonta, A.A. Akdag Salah, C. Sugimoto, U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June to 3 July, 2015, Bogaziçi University Printhouse.

Desrochers, N., Paul‐Hus, A., & Pecoskie, J. (2017). Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(12), 2821-2833.

Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A. & Larivière, V. (2020). The Angle Sum Theory: Exploring the Literature on Acknowledgments in Scholarly Communication. In: Sugimoto, C. Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Saur, pp. 225-247.

Diamond, A. M. (2006). The relative success of private funders and government funders in funding important science. European Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 149-161.

Díaz‐Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2014). Acknowledgments in scientific publications: Presence in Spanish science and text patterns across disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(9), 1834-1849.

Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2013). Impact of funding on scientific output and collaboration: A survey of literature. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 12(04), 1350037.

Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2016). How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1093-1116.

Ebadi, A. (2014). Impact of funding on scientific output and collaboration. Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/979002/4/Ebadi_PhD_F2014.pdf

Ellwein, L. B., Kroll, P., & Narin, F. (1996). Linkage between research sponsorship and patented eye-care technology. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 37(12), 2495-2503.

Fabiano, G., Marcellusi, A., & Favato, G. (2018). Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK. Scientometrics, 1-16.

Folkstad, J., & Hayne, S. C. (2011, January). Visualization and analysis of social networks of research funding. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

Footman, K., Chersich, M., Blaauw, D., Campbell, O. M., Dhana, A., Kavanagh, J., ... & Kern, E. (2014). A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012. Globalization and health, 10(1), 72

Fortin, J. M., & Currie, D. J. (2013). Big science vs. little science: how scientific impact scales with funding. PloS one, 8(6).

Galliher, J.F., Mc Cartney, J.L. (1973). The Influence of Funding Agencies on Juvenile Delinquency Research. Social Problems, 21(1), pp. 77-90

García, C. E., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2005). Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness. Scientometrics, 64(3), 271-300.

Gausia, K., Thompson, S. C., Lindeman, M. A., Brown, L. J., & Perkins, D. (2015). Contribution of university departments of rural health to rural health research: An analysis of outputs. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 23(2), 101-106.

Giles, C. L., & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 17599-17604.

Gillett, R. (1991). Pitfalls in assessing research performance by grant income. Scientometrics, 22(2), 253-263.

Gök, A., Rigby, J., & Shapira, P. (2016). The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 715-730.

Granda-Orive, J. I. D., Alonso-Arroyo, A., García-Río, F., López-Padilla, D. E., Solano-Reina, S., Jiménez-Ruiz, C. A., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). Anatomía de la financiación mundial de artículos de excelencia en tabaquismo, 2010-2014. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 38, 410-417.

Grassano, N., Rotolo, D., Hutton, J., Lang, F., & Hopkins, M. M. (2017). Funding data from publication acknowledgments: Coverage, uses, and limitations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 999-1017.

Grimpe, C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers?. Research Policy, 41(8), 1448-1460.

Harter, S. P., & Hooten, P. A. (1992). Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 583-593.

Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., & Wilson, S. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169-185.

Heffner, A. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5-12.

Henderson, C., Howard, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2003). Acknowledgement of psychiatric research funding. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 183(4), 273-275.

Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity?. Scientometrics, 50(3), 523-537.

Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 51, 1-38.

Huang, M. H., & Huang, M. J. (2018). An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries. Scientometrics, 115(2), 833-847.

Hunt, S., & Norman, D. J. (2018). The NOAO Publications Tracking Program: Developing Policies & Procedures for Usage, Acknowledgment, and Citation of Data. In EPJ Web of Conferences (Vol. 186, p. 12007). EDP Sciences.

Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates' gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific purposes, 23(3), 303-324.

Ihli, M. (2017, December). Methods for Synthesis of Funding Agency & Publisher Data. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Mining Scientific Publications (pp. 57-63).

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011a). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of public economics, 95(9-10), 1168-1177.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011b). The impact of NIH postdoctoral training grants on scientific productivity. Research policy, 40(6), 864-874.

Joly, P. B., Gaunand, A., Colinet, L., Larédo, P., Lemarié, S., y Matt, M. (2015). ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 440-453.

Kaiser, J. (2014). NIH institute considers broad shift to ‘people’ awards. Science, 345(6195), pp. 366367.

Klochikhin, E., & Fealing, K. H. (2018). “Describing Scientific Outcomes”. In Fealing et al (Eds) Measuring the Economic Value of Research: The Case of Food Safety, Cambridge University Press pp.157-174.

Koier, E., & Horlings, E. (2015). How accurately does output reflect the nature and design of transdisciplinary research programmes?. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 37-50.

Kokol, P., & Vošner, H. B. (2018). Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(1), 81.

Kokol, P., Železnik, D., Završnik, J., & Blažun Vošner, H. (2019). Nursing research literature production in terms of the scope of country and health determinants: A bibliometric study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 51(5), 590-598.

Koushan, M., Pejhan, A., Shomoossi, N., & Shomoossi, A. (2014). Ethical considerations in publishing medical articles in Iranian journals. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis, 31(2), 105-111.

Kwon, S., Solomon, G. E., Youtie, J., & Porter, A. L. (2017). A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding. PloS one, 12(10), e0185583.

Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498.

Laudel, G. (2005). Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance?. Research evaluation, 14(1), 27-34.

Laudel, G. (2006). The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Higher Education, 52(3), 375-403.

Lepori, B., Van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Van der Meulen, B., Potì, B., Reale, E., ... & Theves, J. (2007). Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: concepts, implementation and evaluation. Research evaluation, 16(4), 243-255.

Levitt; JM (2011) Are funded articles more highly cited than unfunded articles? A preliminary investigation. ISSI Proceedings, Vol. 2, 68.

Lewison, G., & Carding, P. (2003). Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38(1), 65-84.

Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 17-27.

Lewison, G., & Devey, M. E. (1999). Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 38(1), 13-20.

Lewison, G., & Markusova, V. (2010). The evaluation of Russian cancer research. Research Evaluation, 19(2), 129-144.

Lewison, G., & Roe, P. (2012). The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010. Scientometrics, 93(1), 167-181.

Lewison, G., & Sullivan, R. (2015). Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2151-2159.

Lewison, G., & van Rooyen, S. (1999). Reviewers’ and editors’ perceptions of submitted manuscripts with different numbers of authors, addresses and funding sources. Journal of information science, 25(6), 509-511.

Lewison, G., Grant, J., & Jansen, P. (2001). International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding. Gut, 49(2), 295-302.

Lewison, G., Lipworth, S., & de Francisco, A. (2002). Input indicators from output measures: a bibliometric approach to the estimation of malaria research funding. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 155-163.

Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the European community's biotechnology action programme (BAP): Multinationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31(2), 125-142.

Lewison, G. (1998). Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact. Gut, 43(2), 288-293.

Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output. Journal of informetrics, 3(4), 353-362.

Li, K., & Yan, E. (2019). Are NIH-funded publications fulfilling the proposed research? An examination of concept-matchedness between NIH research grants and their supported publications. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 226-237.

Liebow, E., Phelps, J., Van Houten, B., Rose, S., Orians, C., Cohen, J., ... & Drew, C. H. (2009). Toward the assessment of scientific and public health impacts of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Extramural Asthma Research Program using available data. Environmental health perspectives, 117(7), 1147-1154.

Liu, W., Tang, L., & Hu, G. (2020). Funding information in Web of Science: An updated overview. Scientometrics, 1-16.

Liu, W. (2020). Accuracy of funding information in Scopus: a comparative case study. Scientometrics, 124, 803–811.

Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W., & Meagher, L. (2013). The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 62-71.

Lyubarova, R., Itagaki, B. K., & Itagaki, M. W. (2009). The impact of National Institutes of Health funding on US cardiovascular disease research. PLoS One, 4(7).

Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J., & Latora, V. (2015). Anatomy of funded research in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14760-14765.

Mackintosh, K.H. (1972). Acknowledgements patterns in Sociology. PhD Thesis, University of Oregon.

MacLean, M., Davies, C., Lewison, G., & Anderson, J. (1998). Evaluating the research activity and impact of funding agencies. Research Evaluation, 7(1), 7-16.

Markusova, V. A., Libkind, A. N., & Aversa, E. (2012). Impact of competitive funding on research output in Russia. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(1), 61-69.

Mauleón, E., & Bautista-Puig, N. (2019). A new approach to funding acknowledgment field in the spanish case: Can be used to identify gender gap in research funding? 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019 pp. 2758-2759.

McCann, T. V., & Polacsek, M. (2018). Addressing the vexed issue of authorship and author order: A discussion paper. Journal of advanced nursing, 74(9), 2064-2074.

Mejia, C., & Kajikawa, Y. (2018). Using acknowledgement data to characterize funding organizations by the types of research sponsored: the case of robotics research. Scientometrics, 114(3), 883-904.

Meschede, C. (2020).The Sustainable Development Goals in Scientific Literature: A Bibliometric Overview at the Meta-Level. Sustainability, 12(11), 4461

Moed, H. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60522-7

Miettinen, R., Tuunainen, J., & Esko, T. (2015). Epistemological, artefactual and interactional–institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva, 53(3), 257-277.

Möller, T., Schmidt, M., & Hornbostel, S. (2016). Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2217-2239.

Möller, T. (2019). The Impact of Research Funding Agencies on the Research Performance of five European Countries-A Funding Acknowledgements Analysis. In ISSI (pp. 2279-2287).

Morillo, F., & Álvarez-Bornstein, B. (2018). How to automatically identify major research sponsors selecting keywords from the WoS Funding Agency field. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1755-1770.

Morillo, F., Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2015). How is credit given to networking centres in their publications? A case study of the Spanish CIBER research structures. Scientometrics, 103(3), 923-938.

Morillo, F. (2016). Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1193-1204.

Morillo, F. (2019). Collaboration and impact of research in different disciplines with international funding (from the EU and other foreign sources). Scientometrics, 120(2), 807-823.

Mussurakis, S. (1994). Financial support for research in radiology: a survey of original investigations published in the AJR and Radiology. AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 163(4), 973-979.

Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2016). Funding decision-making systems: An empirical comparison of continuous and dichotomous approaches based on psychometric theory. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 416-426.

Mwendera, C. A., De Jager, C., Longwe, H., Hongoro, C., Mutero, C. M., & Phiri, K. S. (2017). Malaria research in Malawi from 1984 to 2016: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Malaria journal, 16(1), 246.

Ofri, R., Bdolah‐Abram, T., & Yair, N. (2017). Factors affecting peer‐reviewed publication of abstracts presented at meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (2008–2012). Veterinary ophthalmology, 20(6), 533-538.

Oleksiyenko, A., & Sá, C. M. (2010). Resource asymmetries and cumulative advantages: Canadian and US research universities and the field of global health. Higher Education, 59(3), 367-385.

Pao, M. (1991). On the relationship of funding and research publications. Scientometrics, 20(1), 257-281.

Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016). Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 108(1), 167-182.

Paul-Hus, A., Díaz-Faes, A. A., Sainte-Marie, M., Desrochers, N., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences. PloS one, 12(10), e0185578.

Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2017). The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 80-87.

Peritz, B. C. (1990). The citation impact of funded and unfunded research in economics. Scientometrics, 19(3-4), 199-206.

Pollock, R. E., & Ewer, M. S. (2010). The integrity of authorship: doing the right thing. Cancer, 116(17), 3986-3987.

Powell, K. (2019). Searching by grant number: comparison of funding acknowledgments in NIH RePORTER, PubMed, and Web of Science. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 107(2), 172.

Rangnekar, D. (2005, June). Acknowledged: Analysing the bibliometric presence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Aslib Proceedings: new information perspectives, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 247-260.

Reale, E., Inzelt, A., Lepori, B., & Besselaar, P. V. D. (2012). The social construction of indicators for evaluation: Internationalization of Funding Agencies. Research Evaluation, 21(4), 245-256.

Reyes, H., Kauffmann, R., & Goic, A. (1995). Who finances medical research in Chile?. Revista médica de Chile, 123(10), 1243-1251.

Rigby, J., & Julian, K. (2014). On the horns of a dilemma: does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement data. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1067-1075.

Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: new dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 365-375.

Rigby, J. (2013). Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?. Scientometrics, 94(1), 57-73.

Roa-Atkinson, A., & Velho, L. (2005, June). Interactions in knowledge production: A comparative case study of immunology research groups in Colombia and Brazil. Aslib proceedings, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 200-216.

Rodríguez-Padial, L., Lozano, I. F., Urbano, R. H., Melchor, L. S., Massip, A. E., Sánchez, M. A., & Romo, A. Í. (2019). Evolución e impacto bibliométrico de las becas de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología/Fundación Española del Corazón en el periodo 2007-2012. Revista Española de Cardiología, 72(12), 1012-1019.

Rong, X. L., Grant, L., & Ward, K. B. (1989). Productivity of women scholars and gender researchers: Is funding a factor?. The American Sociologist, 20(1), 95-100.

Sá, C. M., Kretz, A., & Sigurdson, K. (2013). Accountability, performance assessment, and evaluation: Policy pressures and responses from research councils. Research Evaluation, 22(2), 105-117.

Salager‐Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2009). “Backstage solidarity” in Spanish‐and English‐written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 307-317.

Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2010). Hidden influencers and the scholarly enterprise: A cross-cultural/linguistic study of acknowledgments in medical research articles. In: Miguel F. Ruiz-Garrido, M.F., Palmer-Silveira, J.C., and Fortanet-Gómez, I. (eds) English for professional and academic purposes. Brill, Rodopi, pp. 43-58.

Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research policy, 30(3), 509-532.

Sandström, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341-349.

Seif, G., & Trope, G. (2010). Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: The Glaucoma Research Society of Canada. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 45(2), 132-134.

Shapira, P, Wang, J (2010). Follow the money. What was the impact of the nanotechnology funding boom of the past ten years? Nature, 468, pp. 627-628.

Sirtes, D., & Riechert, M. (2014). A fully automated method for the unification of funding organizations in the web of knowledge. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 594-597).

Sirtes, D. (2013). Funding acknowledgements for the German Research Foundation (DFG). The dirty data of the web of science database and how to clean it up. In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna 15-19 July (pp. 784-95).

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. North Charles Street, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stamou, S., Tzekou, P., & Zotos, N. (2009, November). Quantifying the impact of funded research works. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Digital Information Management (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Steele, S., Ruskin, G., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2019). “Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola. Journal of public health policy, 40(3), 273-285.

Stehr, F., & Forkel, M. (2013). Funding resources for rare disease research. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular Basis of Disease, 1832(11), 1910-1912.

Stuckler, D., Ruskin, G., & McKee, M. (2018). Complexity and conflicts of interest statements: a case-study of emails exchanged between Coca-Cola and the principal investigators of the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). Journal of public health policy, 39(1), 49-56.

Szell, M., & Sinatra, R. (2015). Research funding goes to rich clubs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14749-14750.

Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2020). Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review. El profesional de la información (EPI), 29(1).

Tan, AM, Zhao, SX., Ye, FY (2012). Characterizing the funded scientific collaboration network. Current Science, 103(11), 1261.

Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2017). Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 790-794.

Te, V., Floden, N., Hussain, S., Brolan, C. E., & Hill, P. S. (2018). What did the Go4Health policy research project contribute to the policy discourse on the sustainable development goals? A reflexive review. Globalization and health, 14(1), 51.

Temple, L., Barret, D., Blundo Canto, G., Dabat, M. H., Devaux-Spatarakis, A., Faure, G., Hainzelin, E., Mathé, S., Toillier, A. y Triomphe, B. (2018). Assessing impacts of agricultural research for development: A systemic model focusing on outcomes. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 157-170.

Tennen, H. (2015). Whoever Pays the Piper Calls the Tune: A Case of Documenting Funding Sources. Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 208.

Thomas, D., & Nedeva, M. (2012). Characterizing researchers to study research funding agency impacts: The case of the European Research Council’s Starting Grants. Research Evaluation, 21(4), 257-269.

Turner, S., Bull, A., Chinnery, F., Hinks, J., Mcardle, N., Moran, R., ... & Wyatt, J. C. (2018). Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study. BMJ open, 8(12), e022548.

Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40(9), 1269-1279.

Van Honk, J., Calero-Medina, C., & Costas, R. (2016). Funding Acknowledgements in the Web of Science: inconsistencies in data collection and standardization of funding organizations. IN: Rafols, Ismael; Molas-Gallart, Jordi; Castro-Martinez, Elena; Woolley, Richard (eds.), International conference on science and technology indicators: peripheries, frontiers and beyond; Valencia (Spain); 14-16 Sep 2016.

Viergever, R. F., & Hendriks, T. C. (2016). The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health research policy and systems, 14(1), 12.

Walsh, B. A., & Sanchez, C. (2010). Reported research funding in four early childhood journals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 289.

Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2011). Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 87(3), 563-586.

Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PloS one, 10(2), e0117727.

Wang, X., Liu, D., Ding, K., & Wang, X. (2012). Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries. Scientometrics, 91(2), 591-599.

Webster, B. M. (2005, February). International presence and impact of the UK biomedical research, 1989‐2000. Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 22-47.

Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. Practising interdisciplinarity, 25-41.

Wilson, M. P., & Itagaki, M. W. (2007). Characteristics and trends of published emergency medicine research. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14(7), 635-640.

Woelert, P., & Millar, V. (2013). The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education, 66(6), 755-767.

Xu, X., Tan, A. M., & Zhao, S. X. (2015). Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences. Scientometrics, 104(3), 673-684.

Yan, E., Wu, C., & Song, M. (2018). The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115(1), 369-384.

Yegros-Yegros, A., & Costas, R. (2013). Analysis of the web of science funding acknowledgement information for the design of indicators on “external funding attraction.”. In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna 15-19 July (pp. 84-95).

Zanca, J. M., Brienza, D. M., Ammer, M. L., Bennett, R. G., & Lyder, C. H. (2005). Acknowledged funding sources in pressure ulcer literature: a systematic review. Advances in skin & wound care, 18(2), 84-91.

Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293-306.

Zhao, S. X., Lou, W., Tan, A. M., & Yu, S. (2018). Do funded papers attract more usage?. Scientometrics, 115(1), 153-168.

Zhou, P., & Tian, H. (2014). Funded collaboration research in mathematics in China. Scientometrics, 99(3), 695-715.

Zoller, F. A., Zimmerling, E., & Boutellier, R. (2014). Assessing the impact of the funding environment on researchers’ risk aversion: the use of citation statistics. Higher Education, 68(3), 333-345.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS